US War on Terror begun after Sept. 2001 terror attack has cost $6.4 trillion so far say two reports

(November 16, 2019) The US War on Terror begun by the US after the Sept. 11 2001 terror attacks on the US have cost at least 801,000 lives and $6.4 trillion according to two reports just published.

Report was prepared at Brown University

The two reports were prepared by the Costs of War Project at Brown University's Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs. Catherine Lutz, Costs of War co-director and a Brown Professor who authored the projects' report on deaths said: "The numbers continue to accelerate, not only because many wars continue to be waged, but also because wars don't end when soldiers come home. These reports provide a reminder that even if fewer soldiers are dying and the U.S. is spending a little less on the immediate costs of war today, the financial impact is still as bad as, or worse than, it was 10 years ago," Lutz added. "We will still be paying the bill for these wars on terror into the 22nd century."

The report can be viewed here. Part of the summary notes: "These wars,and the domestic counter-terror mobilization,have entailed significant expenses, paid for by deficit spending.Thus, even if the United States withdraws completely from the major war zones by the end of FY2020and halts its other Global War on Terror operations, in the Philippines and Africa for example, the total budgetary burden of the post-9/11wars will continue to rise as the US pays the on-going costs of veterans’ care and for interest on borrowing to pay for the wars.Moreover, the increases in the Pentagon base budget associated with the wars are likely to remain, inflating the military budget over the long run."

The Human Cost report

The report Human Cost of Post-911 Wars tallies direct deaths in major war zones and groups people by civilians, humanitarian and NGO worker, journalists and media workers, US military members, Dept. of Defense civilian and contractors, and members of national and military police forces and other allied troops and opposition fighters.

The report reports death in six categories: Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria/ISIS, Yemen and "Other". The civilian death percentage across all categories is up to 335,745 or almost 42 percent of the total.

Indirect deaths are not calculated

However, the report does not even consider indirect deaths caused by starvation, lack of water, and war-related diseases caused by destruction of infrastructure.

David Vine a professor at the American University and board member of the Costs of Wat noted in an article in The Hill that indirect deaths are generally estimated to be four times higher than direct deaths and said: "This means that total deaths during the post-2001 U.S. wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, and Yemen is likely to reach 3.1 million or more—around 200 times the number of U.S. dead." Vine went on:"Don't we have a responsibility to wrestle with our individual and collective responsibility for the destruction our government has inflicted? Our tax dollars and implied consent have made these wars possible. While the United States is obviously not the only actor responsible for the damage done in the post-2001 wars, U.S. leaders bear the bulk of responsibility for launching catastrophic wars that were never inevitable, that were wars of choice."

The US Budgetary Costs and Obligation of Post-9/11 wars

Vine also remarked on the opportunity costs of the $6.4 trillion spent on finance post-9/11 wars. The funds could have been used to feed those in need of food, improve schools, help prevent global warming, improve infrastructure and pay f or healthcare.

A summary of the costs can be found at this website including a pie chart representation of costs. There is also a link to the entire paper.

The $6.4 trillion includes spending in a number of categories: overseas contingency operations(OCO); interest on borrowing for OCO; war-related spending in the Pentagon budget; medical and disability care for post-0/11 veterans; and finally Dept. of Homeland Security spending for prevention of and responding to terrorism.

Neta Crawford a co-director of the project and a professor at Brown claimed that there had been a trend to less transparency in reports about the cost of funding among some major agencies. There had also been institutionalization of the costs in the Department of Defense base budget, and the budgets of the Dept. of State and Homeland Security. There was also a growing cost for veteran's medical care and disability payments.

Further remarks by Lutz

Lutz said that the data from the two reports have had an effect in Congress leading some to make calls to put an end to the join resolution to authorize the use of military force. Lutz maintained that if you count all parts of the federal budget that are military related it makes up two-thirds of the total federal budget. Lutz claimed that most people realize this enormous cost or that these expenditures are crowding out expenditure for other national purposes that are not war related.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Costs of US operations against Islamic State already in excess of one billion

According to the Associated Press, the Pentagon has spent up to $1.1 billion in military operations directed against the Islamic State both in Iraq and Syria since operations began back in the middle of June.

The Pentagon previously said that it is spending between $7 and $10 million a day. The AP calculation is based upon this estimate. US Central Command released figures that put the cost of Navy airstrikes and Tomahawk cruise missile launches at $62 million but did not indicate the costs of Air Force strikes. As of the first week of October there had been more than 266 airstrikes in Iraq and 103 in Syria. Commander Bil Urban, a spokesperson, for the Pentagon claimed that there had been 6,600 sorties sorties by the US and allied aircraft at a cost of some $580 million since airstrikes began on August 8. Earlier, the Defense Dept. had claimed an average of around $7 million a day for the air campaign but that has now been upped to $8.1 million as the pace of airstrikes has increased with the total cost of just the air campaign at $580 million.
 Some independent analysts say the Defense Deptarment underestimates costs claiming that the costs are already beyond a billion dollars and may rise to several billion within a year. Todd Harrison from the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments claims that the war costs could amount to $2.4 billion to $3.8 billion a year. If the bombing raids are expanded significantly he sees the costs climbing to $4.2 billion to $6..8 billion a year.
 A large part of the costs are the huge number of surveillance flights. The military campaign, with the euphemistic name "Operation Inherent Resolve" involves thousands of spy flights plus aerial refueling operations. Drones used in surveillance cost about $1,000 per hour of operation for ordinary Predator and Reaper drones but the high-altitude Global Hawk drones cost much more at $7,000 an hour. Aircraft such as the E-8-J-STAR cost up to $22,000 per hour to operate.
The operations are not funded through the regular budget but through what is the equivalent of a credit card with no upper spending limit the Overseas Contingency Operations Fund. The fund had about $85 billion for the year ending Sept. 30th but is scheduled to drop to $54 billion this year. However, the fund can always be replenished.
Other countries such as the UK will also contribute to the US-led operation against the Islamic State. Malcolm Chalmers, research director at the Royal United Services Institute said that past experience provides some idea of costs although total cost will depend upon the intensity and length of operation. He estimates that the UK seven month mission in Libya cost about $390 million including the missiles used and flight hours. He said that cost would be in the the "ballpark" for Iraq and Syria strikes assuming that the UK used only air power and the campaign did not last more than a couple of years. The UK has special Brimstone precision missiles at a cost of about $240,000 each. The UK may use Tornado GR4 aircraft that cost around $57,000 per hour to operate. The UK also has Storm Shadow cruise missiles costing $1.3 million each and also Tomahawk cruise missiles launched from submarines that cost around $1.5 million each. The UK has already been using Tomahawk missiles in attacks in Syria.

The Thirty Billion Dollar Pair of Underpants.

For the most part the costs associated with increased security will over time simply be accepted as consumers pay for this in increased costs of air fares. However the cost of the extension of the war on terror to c0untries such as Yemen, Somalia, and Nigeria are almost incalculable. Of course the US had already been conducting a virtually unreported low level military operations in Yemen but it would seem from the flurry of news articles that preparations are being made for further intervention. As military costs increase and the US debt increases by leaps and bounds there will necessarily be cuts to the social safety net in the US. This is from aljazeera.


The $30bn pair of underpants

By Mark LeVine



Guarding against similar attacks could cost tens of billions of dollars [GALLO/GETTY]

Almost immediately after it was learned that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian accused of trying to blow up a US airliner using explosives concealed in his underpants, received training in Yemen, US politicians called for Barack Obama, the US president, to expand the 'war on terror' - which remains very much a war despite the administration's official ban of such vocabulary - to that country.

The president obliged, declaring that the US would strike anywhere to prevent another attack.

Such calls were in fact unnecessary, as the US is already involved in Yemen, supervising attacks on militants that have been credited by analysts with helping to further inflame anti-Americanism and support for al-Qaeda in the country.

Indeed, far from heralding a more successful US effort to stamp out Islamist terrorism, the soon to be deepening footprint in Yemen is a sure sign of America's defeat in the war against violent extremism in the Muslim world.

'Boots on the ground'

Think about it. One angry young man with about three ounces (around 80 grams) of explosive material, $2,000, and a pair of specially tailored underwear has completely disrupted the US aviation system.

It does not even matter that he failed to blow up the plane.

The costs associated with preventing the next attack from succeeding will measure in the tens of billions of dollars - new technologies, added law enforcement and security personnel on and off planes, lost revenues for airline companies and more expensive plane tickets, and of course, the expansion of the 'war on terror' full on to yet another country, Yemen.

And what happens when the next attacker turns out to have received ideological or logistical training in yet another country? Perhaps in Nigeria, which is home to a strong and violent Salafi movement, or anyone of a dozen other African, Gulf, Middle Eastern or South East Asian countries where al-Qaeda has set up shop?

Will the US ramp up its efforts in a new country each time there is an attempted attack, putting US "boots on the ground" against an enemy that is impossible to defeat?

Such a policy would fulfill al-Qaeda's wildest dreams, as the US suffers death by a thousand cuts, bleeding out in an ever wider web of interconnected and unsustainable global conflicts.

The European connection

As with the 9/11 attacks, Europe figures prominently in the current attacks. Then it was Germany, this time it was London, where Abdulmutallab studied and apparently began his descent into extremism.

Europe's role is not surprising, and in the case of London, particularly apt.




After centuries as a primary purchaser and transporter of slaves to the Americas from west equatorial Africa, the British used the abolishment of the slave trade to interfere ever more into the economy of the Niger Delta until it assumed increasing colonial control in the mid third of the 19th century, creating the modern state of Nigeria as part of the process (the British gained control of Aden and surrounding areas of Yemen around the same time).

The rampant poverty, corruption and violence that today plague Nigeria are an inheritance of British rule, which itself was built up on centuries of slave raiding and trading - among the most corrupt and violent of activities - by the indigenous elites of the region with Europe, a devil's bargain that haunts this part of the world to the present day.

Should the US be invading London for providing material support to terrorism?

It took decades after the end of the British empire for the impact of British colonialism in South Asia and Africa to blow back onto British soil. The US has not even finished her imperial moment and it has already arrived.

The US will now become ever more deeply involved across the arc of instability beginning in Nigeria and stretching across Africa, the Middle East and into Central Asia.

In the process, it will deepen the mistakes that have made attacks such as the one attempted by Abdulmutallab inevitable.

Poverty and oppression

This is clear from the New York Times' New Year's eve editorial about Yemen, which warned of the importance of "heading off full chaos" in the country.

"Yemen's government is corrupt and repressive," the paper intoned. "But President Ali Abdullah Saleh seems to want to cooperate."

The world's paper of record is utterly clueless as to the intimate link between the corruption and oppression of the Yemeni government and its willingness to "cooperate" with the US, and the roots of radicalism in Yemen.

The New York Times, along with the rest of the mainstream media, have also ignored the role growing up so privileged in a country such as Nigeria had on Abdulmutallab, who likely saw the "moderation" (in Western eyes) of his wealthy banker father as a sign of his participation in a system that violated the most basic ethical premises of his religion and helped support poverty and oppression at home and across the Muslim world.

If the mainstream press, and with it no doubt the Obama administration, are unwilling to recognise the inextricable ties between oppression, poverty, corruption and violence by governments like Nigeria and Yemen, and the rise of religiously grounded extremism and violence there, then its increasing foot- or boot-print there will strengthen rather than weaken al-Qaeda and similar movements.

Strategy of shame

As I stood in the security line at JFK airport waiting to be frisked before boarding a New Year's day flight home, another goal, or at least consequence, of the most recent attack became apparent, one deeply tied to the obsession with physical and sexual honour in radical Islamist ideology: With this one failed action, the movement will succeed in routinising the systematic physical violation of airline travellers by our own security personnel as a part of the price of air travel.

Invasive frisking of the most intimate areas of the human body and revealing full body scans represent from a hardcore Salafi perspective an almost unbearable indignity -one they will surely relish seeing millions of the enemy routinely suffer, especially when such violations mirror the daily indignities and sexual humiliation infamously suffered by inmates in Guantanamo and other US-run prisons.

Call it a politics or strategy of shame - another weapon in the al-Qaeda arsenal that the West will have a hard time finding an answer for and which will erode support for the 'war on terror' from within even as Western governments strengthen their ties to oppressive front line states.

Osama bin Laden could not have planned it better if he tried.

Mark LeVine is currently visiting professor at the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at Lund University, Sweden. His books include Heavy Metal Islam: Rock, Resistance, and the Struggle for the Soul of Islam and Impossible Peace: Israel/Palestine Since 1989.

The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.